Judgment_paragraph 126 · Holzer y Cia, SA de CV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-3/18, T-4/18)

126In the second place, it should be noted that, as has been recalled in paragraph 54 above, use of the contested sign may constitute a factor to be taken into account when establishing the intention underlying the application for registration of that sign, including use subsequent to the date of that application. Consequently, the Board of Appeal correctly held that, although the circumstances relied on by the intervener with regard to the use of the applicant's Mexican trade marks occurred after the application for registration of the trade marks at issue had been filed, they were such as to clarify its intentions at the time of filing and had, therefore, to be taken into account (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 16 May 2017, Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT), T‑107/16, EU:T:2017:335, paragraph 41).…

Holzer y Cia, SA de CV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-3/18, T-4/18)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections